Archives for April 2019

(Chuck Muth) – On April 3, 2019, the State of Nevada submitted its response to a frivolous lawsuit to overturn the state’s brothel law, filed earlier this year by Reno attorney and anti-brothel televangelist Jason Guinasso, asking the court to dismiss it outright.

And after reading the state’s smackdown of the lawsuit’s merits, you have to wonder how Guinasso ever received a license to practice law in the first place.

Some highlights and observations…

1.) The state starts right off the bat noting that the debate over the “merits of legalized prostitution” should be a policy debate, not a federal court action.

“If Congress desired to criminalize prostitution,” Gregory Zunino wrote on behalf of the Nevada Attorney General’s office, “it could easily do so. But it has not.”

2.) Mr. Zunino notes that the federal Mann Act, cited by Guinasso in his lawsuit, prohibits individuals from engaging in prostitution or any other sexual activity “for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense.”

But since no one working in one of Nevada’s legal brothels can be “charged with a criminal offense” for working there – providing they passed their FBI background check and obtained a sheriff’s work card – there can be no violation of the Mann Act.

3.) Mr. Zunino notes that the illegal conduct alleged by Guinasso’s clients is already illegal “under both Nevada and federal laws that criminalize sex trafficking,” and that Nevada’s law allowing legal brothels does not preempt those existing laws in this regard.

“In sum,” Mr. Zunino wrote, “Nevada outlaws the very activity that is the subject of Plaintiff’s amended complaint: sex trafficking.”

4.) The motion to dismiss notes that Guinasso claims “Nevada advertises as a sex tourism state.” However, as Mr. Zunino points out, the examples Guinasso himself submitted “consist of advertisements by private entities, which have no nexus to the State.”

5.) Guinasso also submitted “a number of articles exploring whether there is a connection between legalized prostitution wherever it is practiced and increases in sex trafficking.”

But as Mr. Zunino points out…

“Plaintiffs never allege factual allegations demonstrating a nexus between these articles and their allegations against the State. The only relevance these articles could have is to an outright federal ban on legalized prostitution, which Plaintiffs concede is not federal law.”

6.) Mr. Zunino notes that a “motion to dismiss must be granted when a plaintiff fails to plead a cognizable legal theory, or fails to plead sufficient facts to support such a legal theory.”

“To seek injunctive relief, a plaintiff must show that he is under threat of suffering ‘injury in fact’ that is concrete and particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant (State of Nevada); and it must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will prevent or redress the injury.”

As such, Mr. Zunino argues…

“Here, none of the Plaintiffs individual allegations meet the requirement that they are realistically threatened with a repetition of the conduct that they allege is the violation of federal law. Ms. Charleston, Ms. Delgado-Williams, and Ms. Albright-Byrd all reside in Texas. Each of the Plaintiffs allege they were victims in the past of sex trafficking, but no Plaintiff alleges that she is realistically threatened with an imminent harm as a result of Nevada law.”

He concludes that the Plaintiffs “were not injured by Nevada’s approach to prostitution, nor are their injuries from sex trafficking fairly traceable to Nevada’s laws.”

Further, “Nevada law did not injure Plaintiffs because the traffickers conduct that injured Plaintiffs was illegal in Nevada as well as federal law.”

8.) The state notes that the 11th Amendment “generally bars the federal courts from entertaining suits brought by a private party against a state” unless the state waives its sovereign immunity.

In this case, the motion notes, “the State of Nevada has not waived that immunity.”

“Accordingly,” the Mr. Zunino states, “there is no legal basis upon which Plaintiffs may sue the Governor, much less the state of Nevada, for damages in this Court.”

9.) As for Guinasso’s demand that the Court force Nevada to “set aside not less than $2 million in a fund to assist victims of sex trafficking,” Mr. Zunino argues that the Tenth Amendment bars the federal government from compelling a state government “to expend funds from its treasury for a specific purpose.”

10.) Continuing with the argument that Guinasso’s lawsuit against the state is wrong-directed…

“Plaintiffs failed to allege any affirmative conduct by the State that placed them in danger. Plaintiffs allegations pertain to conduct by private individuals, sex traffickers, who violated federal law, and Nevada law, by using force or threats of force to coerce Plaintiffs into prostitution. Plaintiffs do not allege any affirmative conduct by a state officer with a nexus to any particular instance of sex trafficking alleged by Plaintiffs.”

11.) In his conclusion, Mr. Zunino wrote…

“People of good intentions can disagree as a policy matter whether prostitution should be criminalized; however, such policy debates are reserved for the legislative chamber rather than the courts. There is no conflict between federal law and Nevada law here because federal law does not criminalize prostitution and both Nevada law and federal law criminalize sex trafficking wherever it occurs in Nevada. To the extent that there may be tension between Nevada law and federal law, Plaintiffs improperly seek an advisory opinion from this Court and a judicial remedy for a policy dispute properly committed to the legislative branches of government.”

Of course, the reason Mr. Guinasso has run to the Court with this feeble lawsuit is that he’s thus far been thwarted at every turn in efforts to outlaw prostitution through ballot initiatives and legislation.

Hoping for a little judicial activism is nothing but a desperate Hail Mary.

Let’s hope the Court takes the Attorney General’s arguments to heart and tosses this lawsuit rather than waste any more of the Court’s time or the taxpayers’ money.

(Chuck Muth) – In 1971 the Nevada Legislature passed legislation allowing the operation of legal brothels in any county other than those with populations over 700,000 – which means, Clark County.

On March 13, 2019 Assemblywoman Lesley Cohen (D-Clark) introduced an Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR6) calling for the creation of “an interim committee to study the working conditions at licensed brothels.”

ACR6 specifically stipulates that the Nevada Legislature “has an inherent interest in the health, safety and general welfare of all workers in the State, including sex workers in licensed brothels.”

At a committee hearing on ACR6 conducted in Carson City on March 28, 2019, the Nevada Brothel Association voiced general support for the study but called for amendments to the bill to expand the examination to ALL commercial sex workers, not just those in the licensed brothels.

Indeed, if the Legislature has an inherent interest in the health, safety and general welfare of ALL workers in the State – particularly as it relates to protecting the public from communicable diseases – that should, by definition, include commercial sex work in both licensed brothels AND the currently-unlawful and unregulated sex market, especially in Clark County.

With this in mind, I suggest that ACR6 be amended along the following lines…

WHEREAS, the Nevada Legislature has not undertaken a comprehensive study of the commercial sex industry in the 48 years since legal brothels were authorized in 1971, and

WHEREAS, there has never been a single case of AIDS/HIV or other sexually transmitted disease traced back to a Nevada legal brothel thanks to required health exams and mandatory condom use, which is not the case in the current unlawful and unregulated commercial sex market, and

WHEREAS, commercial sex workers in Nevada’s legal brothels are subjected to an FBI background check, fingerprinting and the issuance of a work card from the local sheriff’s office, which is not the case in the current unlawful and unregulated commercial sex market, and

WHEREAS, legal brothel operations are subject to inspection by law enforcement officials and government regulators at any time for any reason and without notice, which is not the case in the current unlawful and unregulated commercial sex market, and

WHEREAS, due to the illegality of commercial sex work in most Nevada counties, commercial sex workers there have no recourse in seeking aid from law enforcement when physically abused and/or forced into the business against their will, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, that a special study commission be created by the Nevada Legislature consisting of thirteen (13) members, including…

Two (2) members of the State Assembly and two (2) members of the State Senate, one of each who must represent counties in which licensed brothels are operating at the time of passage.

The Director of the Nevada Department of Health and Human Services, the Director of the Nevada Department of Business and Industry, and the Nevada Attorney General, or their designees.

Two (2) individuals who have engaged in commercial sex work; one representing commercial sex workers in licensed brothels and one representing commercial sex workers in the presently-illegal market.

One (1) representative of organizations focused on improving public health and supporting survivors of violence and sexual assault.

One (1) researcher of Nevada’s commercial sex industry from the University of Nevada Reno (UNR) and one (1) researcher of Nevada’s commercial sex industry from the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV), and be it further

RESOLVED, that the study must include, without limitation, an examination of:

The health, safety and general welfare of all individuals engaged in commercial sex work in Nevada;

The impact of revising Nevada law as it relates to consensual commercial sex work in counties with populations greater than 700,000;

Advertising restrictions currently in place on legal brothels.

The Nevada Legislature does, indeed, have an inherent interest in the health, safety and general welfare of all workers in the state, including ALL workers in the commercial sex industry.

The Legislature also has an inherent interest in the health, safety and general welfare of those adults consensually choosing to engage commercial sex services – including the millions of tourists who visit our state – to protect the public from communicable diseases.

Nevada’s licensed and highly-regulated brothels are a success story, and have been for 48 years. They protect the public’s health as well as the safety of those who work there.

As such, if Nevada taxpayers are to fund a study of Nevada’s legal brothels, the scope of said study should be expanded as outlined in the above-mentioned amendment to do the job correctly, fully and responsibly.

Mr. Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a limited-government grassroots advocacy organization, and government affairs counsel to the Nevada Brothel Association

(BBC Business Daily) – What’s the best way to help sex workers? We hear the cases for full decriminalisation, versus abolition of what’s often dubbed the world’s oldest profession.

In the Netherlands – a country with some of the most liberal laws on prostitution – a petition is due to be debated in parliament that calls for it to be made illegal to pay for sex. The initiative, spearheaded by young Christians and feminists, has sparked an outcry with many claiming it would actually make life harder for the sex workers it is intended to help, as the BBC’s Anna Holligan reports.

It’s a controversy we bring back into the BBC studio. Ed Butler hosts a fiery dispute between the British feminist and journalist Julie Bindel, and the Nevadan sex worker-turned-PhD student Christina Parreira, who wants her profession to be treated in law just the same way as any other. Plus Professor Prabha Kotiswaran of Kings College London explains why it doesn’t make much difference what the law says, if it is arbitrarily enforced by the police.

(Chuck Muth) – Nevada has a well-known reputation for often being at the top of an awful lot of “bad” lists.

Well, here we go again.

According to an article in this morning’s Las Vegas Review-Journal, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has determined that “Nevada leads the nation in…the rate of syphilis,” a potentially life-threatening sexually transmitted disease (STD).

“Clark County has had comparatively high STD rates in recent years,” the RJ report continued, “leading the nation in primary and secondary syphilis in 2014.”

Individuals having sex with unfamiliar partners should use condoms, Marlo Tonge, office manager for the health district’s Office of Epidemiology and Disease Surveillance, told the RJ, noting that anyone who thinks they may have been exposed should “Go get tested.”

Now, here’s the thing…

Since commercial sex work was legalized in certain rural Nevada counties way back in 1971, not a single case of AIDS/HIV or other sexually transmitted disease, including syphilis, has been traced back to a legal Nevada brothel where the women are tested EVERY WEEK.

On the other hand, legal brothels continue to be banned in Clark County despite the fact that “Communicable diseases like syphilis are often brought to Las Vegas by tourists” – the engine driving the state’s economy.

“Condoms are required for sex in the state’s brothels,” Dr. Iser told the RJ, “but there’s no way to regulate unprotected sex among illicit sex workers.”

Exactly.

Fortunately, a bill to ban Nevada’s legal rural brothels has been killed in the Legislature this session, though there’s still a longshot possibility it could be brought back from the dead before the session ends.

On the other hand, a bill to create an interim legislative study committee (ACR6) to look into the business operations of Nevada’s legal brothels continues to work its way through the process.

Unfortunately, the proposed study does not include looking at the currently ILLEGAL commercial sex industry in Clark County where the serious problem of sexually transmitted diseases is so prevalent.

If the Legislature is going to spend time and tax dollars to do a study of commercial sex work and workers, it ought to do it right and look at the ENTIRE market, not just Nevada’s highly-successful and proven-safe legal brothels.

Then maybe we can get ourselves off at least one “bad” list.

Mr. Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a limited-government grassroots advocacy organization, and government affairs counsel to the Nevada Brothel Association

(Chuck Muth) – As per the Nevada Legislature’s Standing Rule #14.3.1, Republican State Sen. Joe Hardy’s bill (SB413) to ban Nevada’s legal brothels statewide died on Friday after it failed to get a committee hearing by the midnight deadline.

Cause for optimism, but not celebration…yet. As Yogi Berra famously put it, it ain’t over ‘til it’s over.

And as longtime watchers of the Legislature know, “dead” bills can become “zombie” bills that come back to life as amendments to other bills right up until the time the Legislature officially comes to an end (“sine die”) several weeks from now.

The Associated Press reported this weekend that Hardy “had argued brothels had no place in the state” while “Brothel backers argue a ban would hurt struggling rural economies and push sex workers into dangerous street prostitution.”

Brothel supporters have won the argument…for now. But we’ll remain vigilant and let you know if SB413 somehow joins the walking dead.

In the meantime, Assemblywoman Lesley Cohen’s bill (ACR6) to create a legislative study committee to look into the business operations of Nevada’s legal brothels successfully made it out of committee before the deadline and has moved into the next round – a vote on the floor of the state Assembly.

The bill itself doesn’t specifically outline exactly what Ms. Cohen wishes to study; however, in testimony during a hearing on ACR6 last month, the assemblywoman did reference, generally, certain business practices as outlined in a new book titled “Sex and Stigma” by a trio of UNR researchers.

So I picked up a copy and read it on the Lido Deck during my organization’s annual Mexican Riviera cruise last week. And I think I now see where the assemblywoman is going.

The researchers note that some legally questionable “police rules” exist in some localities where brothels are legally allowed to operate. And before commercial sex workers are issued a work permit, they are required to sign a document agreeing to follow a list of various “regulations for prostitutes.”

The authors cite, as an example, Rule #6 for the town of Carlin that only allows the ladies from the brothels “to dine in restaurants and to conduct personal business and shopping in Carlin between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm.”

The rule goes on to say that “Prostitutes shall not be absent from their place of employment between 7:00 pm and 7:00 am.”

These government-mandated restrictions are what those in the industry call “lockdown” rules.

Examples of other highly-questionable rules outlined in other regulations in other areas include…

“(L)ocal working women are not allowed to go home at night; legal prostitutes are not allowed in town, bars, or casinos; legal prostitutes may not have family members reside in town; legal prostitutes must take days off in a different town; and, if traveling to another destination, legal prostitutes on vacation must take the most ‘expeditious transport’ out of town.”

Not exactly the definition of “freedom.”

The researchers also note that Nye County and the City of Elko “both mandate that any prostitute who leaves the premises for longer than twenty-four hours must undergo all medical testing before being allowed to work again.”

That government-imposed restriction is, indeed, a head-scratcher.

If a working girl is off the premises for 23 hours and 59 minutes…no problem. But if she’s off property for one minute longer THAT somehow poses a public health risk? How? Especially since condom use is mandatory in all interactions.

Anyway, I’d venture to guess that such government-mandated restrictions on legal commercial sex workers working in a legal business that don’t apply to any other legal workers in any other legal businesses are understandably what have caught Assemblywoman Cohen’s attention.

However…

It seems to me that concerns over certain local and/or county rules and regulations could and should be better addressed directly by Ms. Cohen and local elected officials and county commissioners without a full-blown, two-year, taxpayer-funded legislative “study” committee.

On the other hand, if there is to be such a commission formed, it also seems to me the scope of the study should be expanded to include the working conditions for commercial sex workers in both the legal brothels AND the currently-illegal markets…as recommended in a statement by the Nevada Brothel Association presented by commercial sex worker Ruby Rae at the ACR6 hearing last month.

If we’re going to do this thing, let’s do it right.

There’s still time to amend Ms. Cohen’s bill to do a more thorough and comprehensive study of Nevada’s entire commercial sex industry – either as a floor amendment in the Assembly or once it reaches the state Senate.

More on this in the coming days. In the meantime, we can at least be grateful that Sen. Hardy’s brothel-killer bill is dead…for now.

Mr. Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a limited-government grassroots advocacy organization, and government affairs counsel to the Nevada Brothel Association

(Noell Evans | Watchdog.org) – Las Vegas has long been known as “Sin City,” in no small part because of the legalized gambling and prostitution there. If two state senators have their way, legal prostitution in the Silver State will be no more.

Republican Sens. Joseph Hardy and Pat Spearman have co-sponsored SB413. The bill, under review by the Judiciary Committee, takes a two-step approach to reversing the state’s legal positioning on prostitution.

First, it would prohibit the “granting of a license for a house of prostitution.” It would also eliminate “an exemption from criminal liability for prostitution committed in a licensed house of prostitution; eliminating exemptions from certain laws for licensed houses of prostitution.”

If approved, the legislation would criminalize prostitution and violators could be jailed, fined or both. Advertising prostitution services would be illegal as well.

Critics of legal prostitution argue that it leads to sex trafficking. But Chuck Muth, spokesman for the Nevada Brothel Association (NBA), said legal prostitution allows for the industry to be regulated and strict health and safety standards to be in place.

“We find it unfortunate that Sens. Hardy and Spearman have decided to focus their attention on legal brothels where the public’s health and workers’ safety have been protected for almost 50 years now, and where the women who work there do so voluntarily and only after passing a vigorous FBI background check,” Muth said.

Primary Sidebar

Don’t Be Left Out!

Get breaking news, updates & invitations to events!

* indicates required

First Name

Last Name

Email Address *

Suzette Cole, CEO, Moonlite Bunny Ranch

“Prostitution is the oldest profession and will not go away. Nevada has been doing it right since 1971 when we took it out of the criminal’s hands and put it into a highly-regulated industry. As an added benefit, there has never been a case of HIV/AIDS in the history of legal brothels here…and you can’t say that about any other profession in the United States.”

John Stossel, Syndicated Columnist

“We don’t have to cheer for prostitution, or think it’s nice, to keep government out of it and let participants make up their own minds. It’s wrong to ban sex workers’ options just to make ourselves feel better.”

Steve Chapman, Syndicated Columnist

“Prohibition doesn’t eliminate the harms generally associated with prostitution, such as violence, human trafficking and disease. On the contrary, it fosters them by driving the business underground.”

Christina Parreira, UNLV Researcher/Sex Worker

“Sex work is my CHOICE. I’d like to continue to have the opportunity to make that choice legally. We don’t need protection. We’re consenting, adult women.”

New York Assemblyman Richard Gottfried

“Trying to stop sex work between consenting adults should not be the business of the criminal justice system.”

U.S. Sen. Cory Booker

“Yes, sex work should be decriminalized. As a general matter, I don’t believe that we should be criminalizing activity between consenting adults, and especially when doing so causes even more harm for those involved.”

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders

“I think the idea of legalizing prostitution is something that should be considered…(and) certainly needs to be discussed.”

U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris

“When you’re talking about consenting adults, I think that, yes, we should really consider that we can’t criminalize consensual behavior, as long as no one is being harmed. … We should not be criminalizing women who are engaged in consensual opportunities for employment.”

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren

“I believe humans should have autonomy over their own bodies and they get to make their own decisions.”

U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard

“If a consenting adult wants to engage in sex work, that is their right, and it should not be a crime. All people should have autonomy over their bodies and their labor.”

Gov. John Hickenlooper

“Legalizing prostitution and regulating it, so there are norms and protections and we understand more clearly how people are being treated and make sure we prevent abuse, I think it should be really looked at.”

Mike Gravel, former Alaska Senator

“Sex workers are workers, and they deserve the dignity and respect that every worker deserves. For too long, we’ve denied them that. Sex workers, not politicians, should lead the way in crafting sex work policy.”

Prof. Ronald Weitzer, George Washington University:

“Unlike illegal street prostitution in many other places, Nevada’s legal brothels do not disturb public order, create nuisances, or negatively impact local communities in other ways. Instead, they provide needed tax revenue for cash-strapped rural towns.”

Prof. Barbara Brents, UNLV author, “State of Sex”:

“Teams of scholars…have concluded that Nevada’s legal brothels provide a far safer environment for sex workers than the criminalized system in the rest of the United States.”

Prof. Sarah Blithe, UNR author, “Sex and Stigma”:

“Discussions of legal prostitution are rife with misinformation. Academic work and popular press publications alike often conflate legal prostitution in the United States with illegal prostitution.”

Lee Herz Dixon:

“Do I think eradicating legal prostitution from all Nevada counties will erase the practice of the oldest profession in the state, or break the nexus of drugs, crime, and exploitation of the vulnerable? I do not.”

Journalist Michael Cernovich:

“It’s empirically proven that criminalizing sex work allows children to be sex trafficked more readily as they are afraid to turn to authorities and wonder if they will be arrested.”

Enrique Carmona:

“We need to put aside moralistic prejudices, whether based on religion or an idealistic form of feminism, and figure out what is in the best interests of the sex workers and public interest as well.”

Ruby Rae, professional courtesan

“In the brothels, we have the choice, always, to say which clients we will say yes and no to. We have staff that would never let a man hurt us, and we have a clientele that do not come here to hurt us.”

Kiki Lover, professional courtesan:

“We are human beings who chose to do sex work on our own free will. We get treated with respect and like family at the brothels. It’s a job just like any other job. We sell a service that all humans need.”

Paris Envy, professional courtesan:

“I’m not ‘exploited.’ I’m not ‘trafficked.’ I’m not ‘brainwashed.’ I don’t need to be ‘saved.’ I’ve freely chosen this line of work, which is a legal, private transaction between consenting adults.”

Alice Little, professional courtesan:

“It’s ILLEGAL sex work that exploits children. It’s ILLEGAL sex work that traffics. It’s ILLEGAL sex work that sees women exploited and abused by pimps.”

Jim Shedd, Nevadan

“Prostitution should be licensed, regulated, taxed like any other service industry. There are many single or widowed men and women who should be able to take advantage of such services provided by consenting adults for consenting adults. Let’s act to at least reduce illegal sex trafficking and other sex crimes by creating safe and legal outlets for paying adults who wish to use them.”

Paul Bourassa, brothel customer:

“Some people are just never given a chance in the dating scene, so brothels offer those of us with no experience a chance to learn what it’s like to be on a date.”

Lewis Dawkins, brothel customer:

“It’s not always about sex. Little compliments and encouragements offered by the ladies help build my self-confidence. It’s a business, yes. But the ladies care personally about their clients. That means a lot.”

Brett Caton, brothel customer:

“I think brothels provide an important function in society. Legal ones give a safe outlet to their customers and for some men it is the only way they get so much as a hug.”

Footer

Mission

The Nevada Brothel Association PAC is a coalition of legal brothel owners, brothel workers, brothel clients and brothel supporters dedicated to defending a woman’s right to choose professional sex work as a career, protecting the public’s health and safety, and preserving Nevada’s rich live-and-let-live heritage.